Another data point: on my development/testing setup, the cyrus user's
shell is /bin/false. I'm not sure what the practical difference is, if
any, between this and nologin. I get no issues with this for
conventional use.
But for post-hoc debugging/examining state/etc, I often want a working
shell
> they don't need one for running the Cyrus stuff.
I realise I answered a slightly different question than you asked: "one" being
an account, when you were asking about the shell. But the same answer holds
true: since nothing is run in the context of the user, they don't need a shell.
g
> whether cyrus (or other user cyrus-imapd runs as) need a shell?
We run multiple servers, with tens of thousands of users' mailboxes on each,
and there are only a few user accounts on the servers. Those are the admins. So
the answer is no, they don't need one for running the Cyrus stuff. There
Hi,
a recent Debian bug sparkled a discussion whether cyrus (or other user
cyrus-imapd runs as) need a shell? Debian packages create a cyrus user
with disabled password, but nologin shell would add another layer on top
of that.
Cheers,
--
Ondřej Surý
Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high